DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-6 are pending herein.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/07/2023, were filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “electric vehicle” (Claim 1) and “a driving shaft” (Claim 1) and “an accelerator pedal” (Claim 1) must be shown and labeled or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the limitation “the manipulation” (line 7) should be rewritten as “manipulation”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 1-6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Regarding claim 1, the claim recites the limitation: "has fixed power applied after operated” (line 6), which is unclear and therefore renders the claims indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1-6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Regarding claim 1, the claim recites the limitation: " has a gear ratio varying depending on the manipulation of an accelerator pedal” (line 6), which is unclear and therefore renders the claims indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Regarding claim 2, the claim recites the limitation: "has applied power varying depending on a change in speed and an inclination of the ground", which is unclear, and therefore renders the claims indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Regarding claim 4, the claim recites the limitation: "has applied power varying depending on a change in speed and an inclination of the ground", which is unclear, and therefore renders the claims indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (CN 2058920527 – Applicant provided art) in view of Chen (KR20120051644 – Applicant provided art).
[Claim 1] Regarding Claim 1, Yang discloses: An electric vehicle (See, e.g., Fig.1-3) comprising: a main motor (See, e.g., Fig.1-3, 10) configured to generate a driving force (See, e.g., Fig.1-3); a sub-motor (See, e.g., Fig.1-3, 11) configured to share a rotational shaft with the main motor (See, e.g., Fig.1-3); and a gear unit (See, e.g., Fig.1-3, 13) positioned between a differential gear (See, e.g., Fig.1-3, 15) provided on a driving shaft and the main motor (See, e.g., Fig.1-3), wherein the main motor has fixed power applied after operated, and the gear unit has a gear ratio varying depending on the manipulation of an accelerator pedal.
Yang fails to explicitly teach further comprising: wherein the main motor has fixed power applied after operated, and the gear unit has a gear ratio varying depending on the manipulation of an accelerator pedal.
However, Chen teaches a similar electric vehicle (See, e.g., Chen: Fig.1-2) wherein a main motor (See, e.g., Chen: Fig.1-2) has fixed power applied after operated (See, e.g., Chen: Fig.1-2), and the gear unit has a gear ratio varying depending on the manipulation of an accelerator pedal (See, e.g., Chen: Fig.1-2).
Chen teaches that it is well known in the art of electric vehicle design to provide the gear ratio based on manipulation of the accelerator pedal. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the system taught by Yang modified with the electric vehicle control method such as taught by Chen, for the purpose of conveniently adjusting the control of the electric vehicle components based on user input in order to achieve maximum vehicle efficiency. Moreover, the modification is obvious as no more than the use of familiar elements according to known methods in a manner that achieves predictable results. (See, e.g., KSR Int'/ Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,416 (2007)).
[Claim 2] Regarding Claim 2, the combination of Yang in view of Chen teaches: wherein the sub-motor has applied power varying depending on a change in speed and an inclination of the ground (See, e.g., Chen: Fig.1-2).
[Claim 3] Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Yang in view of Chen teaches: wherein when the power applied to the sub-motor is zero, the sub-motor generates power by a rotational force of the rotational shaft (See, e.g., Yang: Fig.1-3, as best understood sub-motor 11 is capable of charging batteries when operating as a generator).
[Claim 4] Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Yang in view of Chen teaches: wherein the gear unit has a gear ratio varying depending on a change in speed and an inclination of the ground (See, e.g., Chen: Fig.1-2).
[Claim 5] Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Yang in view of Chen teaches: wherein the gear unit has a continuously variable transmission (CVT) structure (See, e.g., Yang: Fig.1-3 in view of Chen: Fig.1-2).
[Claim 6] Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Yang in view of Chen teaches: wherein a clutch (See, e.g., Yang: Fig.1-3, 12) is provided between the gear unit and the main motor (See, e.g., Yang: Fig.1-3).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure, and can be found on the attached Notice of References Cited.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES M DOLAK whose telephone number is (571)270-7757. The examiner can normally be reached on 9-530 EST Monday-Friday.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, J ALLEN SHRIVER can be reached on 303-297-4337. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JAMES M DOLAK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3613